Arctic winter sea ice puzzle

The greatest anomalies are in the European sector, specifically in the Barents Sea

To what extent are the anomalies associated with warm temperatures? From the
DMI
surface temperature plot, north of 80N (from ECMWF reanalysis):

The global picture of sea surface temperature from OISST:

So, what might be causing this particular anomaly? Some possibilities are:

global warming (January 2016 was warmest Jan on record, according to the surface temperature analyses

multidecadal oscillations (e.g. stadium wave) predicts ice recovery to be occurring in the same region (European Arctic) where we see the sea ice decline).

seasonal weather circulation patterns – this has been a year with with unusual weather patterns, with both low temperature and high temperature records being set.

New paper by Goss et al.

A very interesting series of papers by a team at Penn State has come to my attention, here is the latest:

Stationary Wave Interference and Its Relation to Tropical Convection and Arctic Warming

Michael Goss, Stephen Feldstein, Sukyoung Lee

The interference between transient eddies and climatological stationary eddies in the Northern Hemisphere is investigated. The amplitude and sign of the interference is represented by the stationary wave index (SWI), which is calculated by projecting the daily 300-hPa streamfunction anomaly field onto the 300-hPa climatological stationary wave. ERA-Interim data for the years 1979 to 2013 are used. The amplitude of the interference peaks during boreal winter. The evolution of outgoing longwave radiation, Arctic temperature, 300-hPa streamfunction, 10-hPa zonal wind, Arctic sea ice concentration, and the Arctic Oscillation (AO) index are examined for days of large SWI values during the winter.

Constructive interference during winter tends to occur about one week after enhanced warm pool convection and is followed by an increase in Arctic surface air temperature along with a reduction of sea ice in the Barents and Kara Seas. The warming of the Arctic does occur without prior warm pool convection, but it is enhanced and prolonged when constructive interference occurs in concert with enhanced warm pool convection. This is followed two weeks later by a weakening of the stratospheric polar vortex and a decline of the AO. All of these associations are reversed in the case of destructive interference. Potential climate change implications are briefly discussed.

subseasonal weather variations associated with with weather regimes such as the MJO, AO, etc.

The amplitude of the subseasonal variations in sea ice is greater than the amplitude associated with multidecadal ocean oscillations and secular warming trend, hence invariably it is weather that is responsible for an individual blip (that may contribute to a record in sea ice extent). The sea ice data set is inadequate for sorting out the secular global warming trend from the multi-decadal variability.

The Penn State team is making important contributions to unraveling this, in presenting some ideas that challenge ‘alarmist wisdom’ about the Arctic sea ice decline. I look forward to following their work.

There were negative AO episodes just where the sea ice extent had relative reductions from the start of January, and from the second week of February.

“The sea ice data set is inadequate for sorting out the secular global warming trend from the multi-decadal variability.”

I don’t see the problem, negative AO and especially negative NAO increased from the mid 1990’s, and drove the warming of the AMO and Arctic. The warm AMO is then driving further surface warming by drying continental interiors, and by lowering atmospheric water vapour altitude globally. Increased forcing of the climate increases positive AO/NAO, so some other forcing is declining and overwhelming the increase in CO2 forcing, else negative AO/NAO would have not increased. There is only one possible culprit:

The descriptions that you use and support are laughable. The use of the term “climate risk deniers” shows the stupidity of your position.

Of course there are risks that the climate will change negatively in any location around the world. This has always been true. You have no even reasonably reliable information to tell whether the climate in any particular location will be changing in a positive of negative manner.

You are a “climate risk denier!” The only means to reliably reduce the risk of the negative consequences of adverse weather or climate change is the construction and maintenance of robust infrastructure. How does it make sense to any sensible person to spend limited financial resources on mitigating CO2 vs. building and maintaining infrastructure???

The new MO of alarmists seems to have become the cry of conspiracy ideation every time some questions their claim, points out curious event like the one with the DMI, or as much as disagrees with them. Dramagreens indeed.

Do you for example have an explanation to the contradicting views of the DMI in that while they define open water in the following manner:
“The number of days of open waters for a given point is defined as the interval between the sea ice concentration falling from greater than 30% to less than, and remaining so for at least 5 days, until the ice concentration again climbs to above 30%, and stays so for at least 5 days”
see http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/climatology_v2/frzbrkowd_mean.uk.php
They at the same time now say that we should follow 15 % ice coverage as the measure of sea-ice. Which is it? Open water or sea-ice?

Verylowguy, once you started lying it became clear what you stand for. Only the last citation was from my comments, you fool. And for that comment there’s plentiful documentation if you really claim that I was wrong?

I thought it was obvious from the context in the thread, but yes, for absolute clarity, only the last quote is from you – the other two are previous conspiracy supporting posts immediately before yours which you built on.

On the definition of open water, I have no opinion. Other than it isn’t a bizarre conspiracy to hide the troof.

verytallguy:
“Sceptics” hint at nefarious deeds by reputable organisation, and you don’t know what to make of it?

Me neither. It’s probably just a coincidence. According to statistician Frederick Mosteller, coincidences are much more common than seems reasonable naively. As explained, the data are still available.

conspiracy theory: An explanatory or speculative hypothesis suggesting that two or more persons or an organization have conspired to cause or to cover up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation typically regarded as illegal or harmful.

conspiracy ideation: What a conspirator yells when you’ve caught them at it, REPEATEDLY, yet they still expect their actions and motives to be treated as honorable and above question. See ‘prat’

“Perhaps that is is cold around the pole, enlarging the 30% ice coverage while warm around the fringes, decreasing the 15% ice coverage.”

Well, at least one person actually tried to come up with a reason, instead of tossing up red herrings. I was thinking maybe winds were compacting the ice, making it more concentrated while decreasing the extent of loose ice. The net change would be very uncertain.

Will be interesting to see what happens in summer. More tightly packed ice at higher latitude should melt slower, wouldn’t you think?

Bizarre, indeed. You may need to get your eyes checked. Perhaps you are wearing rose colored glasses, and missed the fact that the concentration is deeper, and the promontories wider, just about everywhere.

There are about three things to keep in mind as far as the low ice extent. One is that 15% may look different than 30%. The second is somewhat related. That is that one should also look at ice thickness. I believe it has been trending upward and is not as thin as in prior years. The third is that there may not be that strong of a relation between winter 15% extent and summer. 2011-2012 had very high 15% in winter and went on to have the lowest summer extent ever. Winter extent has only been decreasing at 2-3% per decade over last 35 years. Given the prevalence of apparent 60 year semi-cycles (irregular cycles), wait and see if the ice really does start to recover over the next decade.

Agree, but also all that open water is warmer than ice, plus ice is an insulator, and there surface exchange, all leading to a lot more energy lost to space than is it was a larger extent.
There’s only 4-6 hours a day when solar might put more energy than lost, but the rest of the time, far more is lost than gained.

JC, I had been wondering your thoughts on the implications of the recent barentz/kara sea ice data for your stadium wave idea. I remember last year you were trying touse the past few years of piomas ‘data’ to suggest a start of a recovery. Clearly there is no such recent recovery on the european side, if anything things are still going in the opposite direction. So are you still happy with the Stadium wave, and are you still waiting for are ‘recovery’ on the european side?

The stadium wave is a short cycle in climate. I think it is the 60 year cycle.
Most of what is happening to open the arctic ocean is the 1000 year cycle.
Roman warm, cold, Medieval warm, Little Ice Age, warm again now.

http://www.dmi.dk/fileadmin/Rapporter/SR/sr05-02.pdf
The extent of ice in the North Atlantic varies in time with time scales stretching to centennial, and the cause of these variations is discussed. We consider the Koch ice index which describes the amount of ice sighted from Iceland, in the period 1150 to 1983 AD. This measure of ice extent is a non-linear and curtailed measure of the amount of ice in the Greenland Sea, but gives an overall view of the amounts of ice there through more than 800 years. [W]e find that the recently reported retreat of the ice in the Greenland Sea may be related to the termination of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early twentieth century. We also look at the approximately 80 year variability of the Koch [sea ice] index and compare it to the similar periodicity found in the solar cycle length, which is a measure of solar activity. A close correlation (R=0.67) of high significance (0.5 % probability of a chance occurrence) is found between the two patterns, suggesting a link from solar activity to the Arctic Ocean climate.
–https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/6A/SpecialEdition/6A_SpecialEdition_1/_pdf
Since the decadal variation of the AO is recognized as the natural variability of the global atmosphere, it is shown that both of decadal variabilities before and after 1989 in the Arctic can be mostly explained by the natural variability of the AO not by the external response due to the human activity.
–http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0301.1
On the interannual time scale, ENSO and SAM are important, but a large fraction of sea ice variance can also be explained by Rossby wave–like structures in the Drake Passage region. After regressing out the sea ice extent variability associated with ENSO, the observed positive sea ice trends in Ross Sea and Indian Ocean during the satellite era become statistically insignificant. Regressing out SAM makes the sea ice trend in the Indian Ocean insignificant. Thus, the positive trends in sea ice in the Ross Sea and the Indian Ocean sectors may be explained by the variability and decadal trends of known interannual climate modes.

Interesting links. While reading the first paper the question rose as to whether different external forcings affect discrete parts of the globe.
Also, whether strong correlations can be found are becoming less important to me than simply identifying evidence of large variability. Let future generations sharpen those relationships to a fine point.

The Arctic ice comes and it goes. Post-Napoleonic period, 1920s, right now…less of the stuff. Late nineteenth century, 1970s…more.

It’s a bit like the sea level thing and the temp thing: no sense in building on current trends. There’s always a current trend, but trends end. It’s true you are not living in your grandparents’ climate. What they leave out is that your grandparents were not living in their grandparents’ climate.

Get ready for more or less, warmer or cooler, higher or lower. It’s called prudence, can’t be modelled, can’t be push-polled, can’t be fudged.

And since so much science is modelling, push-polling and fudging these days…don’t go looking for a climate scientist with a good stock of prudence.

Grow your own prudence. When you’ve got time and funds, dig an extra well…but dig an extra drain too.

The main ice deficit this year in the N Atlantic and Barrents Sea region. This winter there has been an astonishingly persistent warm SW flow across the N Atlantic into the Arctic and across W Europe and hence why W Europe is seeing one of the warmest winters for many years. This persistent SW flow was repeated previously in the last super El Nino in the winter of 97/98 where also strong warming SW wind flow persisted over the eastern N Atlantic and W Europe. I would say there is empirical evidence to suggest this persistent SW flow was related to the El Nino semi stationary convection in the Pacific, but with so few samples to choose from it is near impossible to be sure of the relationship.

When oceans get warm, polar oceans thaw, this is a necessary and natural and wonderful event that is needed to provide snowfall to replenish ice on land. This happened during the Roman and Medieval warm periods, but we were not watching as closely. We do know the Vikings left Greenland because it started snowing too much. This will continue as did the Roman and Medieval warm periods continued, and then the replenished ice will advance and dump ice and ice cold water on land in into the oceans and start the next little ice age.

Half the sea level rise, equalling 7 out of 14 cm per century give or take whatever the error values are, has been attributed to natural cause i.e. coming out of an ice age.
For all intensive purposes you could say I made the figure up but I dare you to find a better one.

The Arctic air has been hot for the last 4 years with increasing winter SIE 2 and 3 years ago but not last year.
The air temperature does not seem to be an issue really, 9/10ths of the ice is underwater and the main cause for ice increase or decrease is the temperature of the adjacent water.
Air currents and storms can compact thin ice reducing area for up to 10 days but it usually recovers.
The DMI 30% recently removed was interesting in that it showed an increase where the 15% dipped.
This raises the possibility that the data is being under interpreted as to ice thickness in the 15% algorithms, which all copy each other precisely.
The proof of this pudding may be in PIOMAS and other volume studies.
If PIOMAS is up again with 15% SIE down, which we will see in 2 weeks, then the chances are that this low SIE is spurious or weather based.
If PIOMAS keeps going up it will be thrown under the bus next.

I like to look at data. Unfortunately the Argo program doesn’t seem to drop buoys in the Eastern Barents, the lack of data is a real shame. Right now there’s a single buoy north of Murmasnk giving erratic readings.

I looked over the information I can access, and I noticed the open water is definitely too far above freezing to make a difference (it’s more or less -5 to 1 degrees in the eastern Barents).

But I also noticed the relative humidity is really high over the ice and nearby onshore areas, which tells me it must be snowing above normal. I went and checked the Danish ice mass and thickness plot and the mass is doing fine according to their analysis. Which means the ice is thicker. The “missing ice” is mostly eastwards of the line from the White Sea to Svalbard. So the question is whether that sector is going to warm up much more than average in the spring and summer.

I like the line in the Penn State team’s abstract… “Potential climate change implications are briefly discussed.” I thought the science was settled. We will all be able to sail in open water to the North Pole in the summer because of man-made global warming. At least that is what we have been told. What’s all this about “potential climate change implications”???

It is indeed a bit of pickle even for the DMI since they define open water in the following manner:
“The number of days of open waters for a given point is defined as the interval between the sea ice concentration falling from greater than 30% to less than, and remaining so for at least 5 days, until the ice concentration again climbs to above 30%, and stays so for at least 5 days”
see http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/climatology_v2/frzbrkowd_mean.uk.php
So they say on the one hand that sea-ice concentration under 30 % coverage equals to open waters and regardless want us to follow 15 % coverage as the measure of sea-ice. Right, that makes sense

It’s certainly is a puzzle. The DMI got rid of a sea-ice chart with 30 % coverage although the otherwise build most of their sea-ice charts (at least four sets of charts found on their web-site) on the 30 % sea-ice concentration metric. In fact, they define open water in the following manner:
“The number of days of open waters for a given point is defined as the interval between the sea ice concentration falling from greater than 30% to less than, and remaining so for at least 5 days, until the ice concentration again climbs to above 30%, and stays so for at least 5 days”
see http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/climatology_v2/frzbrkowd_mean.uk.php
So they say on the one hand that sea-ice concentration under 30 % coverage equals to open waters and regardless want us to follow 15 % coverage as the measure of sea-ice. Right, that makes sense.

Perhaps the Gross et al paper also offers an explanation for the pattern of large wintertime only anomalies, both positive and negative, for average surface temperature above ~30N. These anomalies last on the order of a month, are only present between November and March, and contribute more to variation in average global temperature
over short periods than anything else. individual winter seasons seem to have a tendency toward dominance by either warm or cold anomalies.

Looking at the Lomborg article in the Twitter link about the Paris conference 2 months ago…

Jim Hansen, a former NASA scientist and advisor to Al Gore who was the first to put global warming on the public radar in 1988, wasn’t fooled. “It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he said in December. “It’s just worthless words.”

Sorry, Hansen abandoned integrity in 1988 when he rigged the air-con in the building prior to the senate hearing where he started this whole fiasco rolling.

The fact that he is not happy with the wasted out Paris agreement, which is probably as close to sanity we can get after 30y of Hansen and his friends misrepresenting and tricking the science to ‘save the world’, does not increase his integrity. He is still an activist pretending to have scientific objectivity.

Neither was all the millions he was taking while a govt employee and not allowed to make money on the side, a great sign of integrity or honestly.

Greg, it appears you are right about gifts. Apparently the lawsuit regarding that never went anywhere. For example, consider these failures to report often elegant air and hotel/resort accommodations received on his SF278 as required by law (the amount of direct cash income received from the party providing him travel, as well, is in parentheses):
•Blue Planet Prize ($500,000), travel for Hansen and his wife to Tokyo, Japan, 2010
•Dan David Prize ($500,000), travel to Paris, 2007
•Sophie Prize ($100,000), Oslo Norway, travel for Hansen and his wife, 2010
•WWF Duke of Edinburgh Award, Travel for Hansen and his wife, London, 2006
•Alpbach, Austria (alpine resort)(“business class”, with wife), 2007
•Shell Oil UK ($10,000), London, 2009
•FORO Cluster de Energia, travel for Hansen and wife (“business class”), Bilbao, Spain, 2008
•ACT Coalition, travel for Hansen and wife to London, 2007
•Progressive Forum ($10,000)(“first class”), to Houston, 2006
•Progressive Forum ($10,000), to Houston, 2009
•UCSB ($10,000), to Santa Barbara, CA
•Nierenberg Prize ($25,000), to San Diego, 2008
•Nevada Medal ($20,000), to Las Vegas, Reno, 2008
•EarthWorks Expos, to Denver, 2006
•California Academy of Science ($1,500), to San Francisco, 2009
•CalTech ($2,000), travel to Pasadena, CA for Hansen and his wife, 2007

Extent maybe not the best metric. The islands in the Eastern Arctic appear to break up the ice leaving some holes when flow strong across them. Also, the strong poleward flow appears to compress the extent somewhat during the latest nowcast run:

Increases would appear to depend on how much of the 3 meter ice in the Western Arctic persists and becomes a nucleus for subsequent years.

I’m sure you’ve seen any that I have. But too often people think of the rate of change term but not the advection term and the dynamics. Ice is lost because of flow ( the Fram Strait ). Ice is compressed because of flow ( the Canadian Archipelago ). And the ice front moves.

The worsening of tidal flooding in American coastal communities is largely a consequence of greenhouse gases from human activity, and the problem will grow far worse in coming decades, scientists reported Monday.

Those emissions, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, are causing the ocean to rise at the fastest rate since at least the founding of ancient Rome, the scientists said. They added that in the absence of human emissions, the ocean surface would be rising less rapidly and might even be falling.

The increasingly routine tidal flooding is making life miserable in places like Miami Beach; Charleston, S.C.; and Norfolk, Va., even on sunny days….

Such events are just an early harbinger of the coming damage, the new research suggests….

Scientists say the recent climate agreement negotiated in Paris is not remotely ambitious enough to forestall a significant melting of Greenland and Antarctica, though if fully implemented, it may slow the pace somewhat.

RC, the Rahmstorf paper is all models. The usual nonsense from Potsdam. The Rutgers paper about 20th century most rapid rise is paleoclimate. Also provable SLR hockey stick nonsense. See just posted following comment.

It’s written in plain English so that even someone like myself, who doesn’t know anything about the technical aspects of this stuff, can understand and capture the meaning.

What interests me more than the technical aspects of all this, however, is why the “engineers of consent,” despite giving it their all, sometimes fail.

The engineers of consent met their Waterloo, at least the first one, in the Vietnam War. Before that they believed they had the world by the tail and that the public was mere putty in their hands.

Then it all went to hell in a handbasket:

The only limitation to what the public relations man does comes when he discovers that the same people who perhaps can be “manipulated” to buy a certain kind of soap cannot be manipulated…to “buy” opinions and political views.

Therefore the psychological premise of human manipulability has become one of the chief wares that are sold on the market of common and learned opinion. But such doctrines do not change the way people form opinions or prevent them from acting according to their own lights.

[Secretary McNamara and his team] believed that politics is but a variety of public relations, and they were taken in by all the bizarre psychological premises underlying this belief….

Image.making as global policy — victory in the battle “to win people’s minds” — is indeed something new in the huge arsenal of human follies recorded in history….

It may be natural for elected officeholders — who owe so much, or believe they owe so much, to their campaign managers — to think that manipulation is the ruler of the people’s minds and hence the true ruler of the world….

What is surprising is the eagerness of those scores of “intellectuals” who offered their enthusiastic help in this imaginary enterprise, perhaps because they were fascinated by the sheer size of the mental exercise it seemed to demand.

— HANNAH ARENDT, Lying in Politics

It looks like all the histrionics and hysteria of the Climatariat — engineers of consent
par excellence
— haven’t played well in Peoria either, and public opinion is not moving in the desired direction.

In ancient times people built idols in their own images and worshiped them to ensure more favorable weather and prosperity. Today those icons take the form of computer models whose prophecies are sure to scare the bejesus out of us.

Hannah Arendt also had something to say about those “computers”:

Under normal circumstances the liar is defeated by reality, for which there is no substitute; no matter how large the tissue of falehood that an experienced liar has to offer, it will never be large enough,
even if he enlists the help of computers, to cover the immensity of factuality. The liar, who may get away with any number of single falsehoods, will find it impossible to get away with lying on principle.

This is one of the lessons that could be learned from the totalitarian experiments and the totalitarian rulers’ frightening confidence in the power of lying — in their ability, for instance, to rewrite history again and again to adapt the past to the “political line” of the present moment or to eliminate data that did not fit their ideology. Thus, in a socialist economy, they would deny that unemployment existed, the unemployed person simply becoming a non-person.

The results of such experiments when undertaken by those in possession of the means of violence are terrible enough, but lasting deception is not among them.

OT but merits a reply. Paywalled, phys.org report and abstract are not. To get 28 centuries they analyze 24 sites around the world using ‘new statistical techniques’. Last time we saw that, Mann used new statistical techniques (centered PCA) to manufacture hockey sticks. This paper manufactured an SLR hockey stick. Paleoproxies for SLR and temperature from the 24 sites for 28 centuries.. They make a big deal of showing how sensitive SLR is to temp. Their new technique found a strong decrease in SLR from 1000 to 1400, associated with a temperatue decline of 0.2C. Paleoproxies are not that temperature precise. And their interval corresponds to the MWP when temperatures rose globally (shown for example, by ikaite formation on the Antarctic penninsula). Study is worthless IMO because of this basic contradition of well established events. It is truly Mannian.

Sea level has been steadily rising over the past century, predominantly due to anthropogenic climate change.
The rate of sea level rise will keep increasing with continued global warming, and, even if temperatures are stabilized through the phasing out of greenhouse gas emissions, sea level is still expected to rise for centuries.
This will affect coastal areas worldwide, and robust projections are needed to assess mitigation options and guide adaptation measures. Here we combine the equilibrium response of the main sea level rise contributions with their last century’s observed contribution to constrain projections of future sea level rise. Our model is calibrated to a set of observations for each contribution, and the observational and climate uncertainties are combined to produce uncertainty ranges for 21st century sea level rise. We project anthropogenic sea level rise of 28–56 cm, 37–77 cm, and 57–131 cm in 2100 for the greenhouse gas concentration scenarios RCP26, RCP45, and RCP85, respectively. Our uncertainty ranges for total sea level rise overlap with the process-based estimates of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The “constrained extrapolation” approach generalizes earlier global semiempirical models and may therefore lead to a better understanding of the discrepancies with process-based projections.

Nobody doubts that Arctic ice is light-on lately (though some like me don’t care), but you wouldn’t want to be taking on Spitsbergen waters in 2009 and 2011 during the ice season. And we’re talking about fast ice. You’d need to be Chris Turney with some very understanding Russian friends.

“before we trust it I want to see the calibration records for that observer.”

Good point.

I feel the same way about temperatures taken in the 1800’s.

I also think you have a good point about sea ice volume.

A great deal of uncertainty for all climate records before 1979, as far as I am concerned.

Nobody designed thermometers for climate, they were using them for weather.

It would be a good idea to design some instruments to measure variables of use in studying climate and disperse them over the entire world and get some uniformity in what is measured and how it is measured – and then measure for 60 or 120 years.

Even if people argue we don’t need that, I would recommend doing it anyway – because it couldn’t hurt and would probably be pretty cheap.

Easy. Another paleoproxy paper using “new statistics” to manufacture a SLR hockey stick. See a more detailed comment upthread. Better, go to the report on it at phys.org. What to you make of not just a MWP disappearance in their 24 new 28 century paleoproxies for SLR and temperature, but producing a newly discovered Medieval Cooling Period with high SLR sensitivity to temps as SLR slowed significantly? Outdid Mann, they did. There is historical (alpine tree lines) and archeological (Greenland Vikings) and physical (ikaite formation on the Antarctic penninsula) evidence that there really was a MWP, and its effects were global. Such an upside down ‘discovery’ should have been red flagged in peer review.

Tony Heller’s blog recently showed an Arctic ice extent anomaly from a 1990 IPCC report that showed low levels of ice extent in 1973-74 but all the ice data currently being reported start from a high point in 1979. Cherry picking ?

Satellite sea ice surveillance started in 1979, coincidentally near the apex of what appears to be a ~60 oscillation. IMO nadir was 2007 since 2012 clearly result of a summer arctic clone. Arctic sea ice recovery (not steady yr-yr because of weather, but over 30 years) will be one of the big three public perception blows to CAGW. The others are the pause reprising 1950-1975 global temperature, and lack of accelerating SLR.

TE, essay Northwest Passage gave substantial qualitative historical evidence for this, with footnote references. It also discussed the reliability problems with satellite summer ice measurement using microwaves caused by meltwater pools. Recently determined h/t Ron Clutz that MASIE has finer resolution because incorporates optical observations, and uses 40% ice not 10 or 15. IMO a better product for summer ice extent. Only available from 2006, but showing no deterioration and arguably recent recovery. A 15% ice metric means 85% open water is counted as ‘ice’; far too influenceable by wind, wave, and current.

ristvan:Arctic sea ice recovery (not steady yr-yr because of weather, but over 30 years) will be one of the big three public perception blows to CAGW. The others are the pause reprising 1950-1975 global temperature, and lack of accelerating SLR.

I think you have presented the right time frame. If ever there was a case to be made for Normal Science, this is the time: steady, persistent, patient progress on all frontiers of climate science. The papers presented today are instances of Kuhn’s “puzzle solving” attribute of Normal Science.

Stationary gaussian. This is complicated a little by the frequency resolution, that is by the time extent represented, the process being represented by a limit to zero and infinity respectively, during which none of the spectral lines are stable, only the expected value of their square.

So a new peak is a problem to discuss in terms of spectrum. That piece of spectrum could be zero if more of the process were taken into account.

This complexity is for the simplest case, a stationary gaussian process. Even more bets are off if either word is dropped, the worst word to drop being gaussian.

About this:
A theory for polar amplification from a general circulation perspective. Punchline: this theory invokes that La-Niña-like tropical heating can help tap available potential energy and warm the Arctic by exciting poleward and upward propagating Rossby waves.

Is there an explanation why polar amplification is occurring at only one pole? That sounds like a part of an explanation for a net southerly to northerly heat transport.

Many point to this
1980 paper by Manabe
as the first identification of ‘Arctic Amplification’. In it, he identifies the difference of albedo feedback between Arctic and Antarctic. The Antarctic is land, much of it above 2000m high which doesn’t melt and thus doesn’t have albedo feedback while reduction of Arctic sea ice would invoke surface albedo feedback.

It’s not clear that what’s happening now is related to global warming. In Manabe’s paper, the scenario was of a quadrupling of CO2, so some portion of Arctic events may be unrelated.

Also, the albedo change in that 1980 paper may be way off ( it was 1980, after all ). Below is Figure 15 of that paper compared with GISS models for quadrupling of CO2. Clearly, GISS indicate much less albedo reduction and even albedo increase around the ITCZ. There’s no guarantee that GISS would be correct either, but it’s much less than earlier:

Arctic amplification was known about in the 1820’s and was a hot topic during the 1920-1940 arctic warming. That period was also typified by low winter sea ice levels at times, as can be evidenced in these extracts from my article ‘historic variations in arctic ice part 2’

—- —- ——

“Additional scientific information comes from the 1971 book ’Times of Feast, Times of Famine-A History of Climate since the year 1000’ by Dr Emmanuel le Roy Ladurie-a renowned French historian- page 82 onwards, which here references information on the various recent waves of warming;

“
“The most spectacular amelioration is that of arctic or sub arctic regions, the areas at the extreme limit of Nordic colonization from Greenland to Spitzbergen . In the 1930’s Scherlag diagnosed a winter amelioration November-March of plus 5 degrees C at jakobshavn (Greenland) comparing the periods 1883-1892 and 1923-1932. At Spitsbergen the winter increase reached the phenomenal height of 8 to 9 deg C in the decade 1930 as compared with the normal for 1912-1926.”

It continues;

“
‘the tendency toward amelioration in the present century in the USSR, varying greatly in degree from the Ukraine to Siberia, was observed just before the last war and by Rubinstein in 1956 (with) mainly the winter months affected. The tendency is more pronounced in northern areas like the Barents sea, the shores of the Arctic ocean and the estuaries of the Ob and Yenisey rivers. Mitchells curves (showing temperature anomalies from 100 stations, one of the precursors to Giss) (demonstrate) there is indeed a world amelioration particularly in winter. It affects principally the Arctic and (secondly) the cold and temperate zones of the Northern Hemisphere including the US, Europe and Siberia. Thirdly it affects the tropics and finally in a much less perceptible way the temperate zones of the Southern Hemisphere…..”

What are you calling baloney? The data, the name , some interpretation of what it means or its causes?

Some of the temperatures may be baloney projection of land temps out over water and junk like that, but there does seems to more warming that at lower latitudes.

Much of that may be due to changing amounts of water vapour and changes in enthalpy that are also getting brushed aside in the non physical statistics of playing with temperatures as though they were a linearly additive quantity.

IMO (sigh) the data is not of sufficient length and reliability to draw conclusions about climate trends for the next 10 to 100 years. There seems to be a number of cycles at work, the combined effect of which is reflected as short term variability but as to whether causation is mainly anthropogenic or not remains moot.

Quite clearly 35 years of data from a system with a significant 60y periodicity is insufficient to understand what has already happened, let alone start projecting.

One thing that is clear is that the “accelerating melting” that occurred for 1997 to 2007 has stopped accelerating and is now decelerating, so all the talk of having reached a tipping point is out of the window. Once you reach a tipping point you can’t slow down, by definition.

A vase that has started to tip does not pause for thought half way down.

I have now ploughed through the whole thread. Whilst there has been mention of Rossby waves nobody has mentioned wind driven swells in general, or “Strom Frank” in particular. Take a look at this video:

Meier says nothing new, that topic is a dead-end, we can respectfully agree to disagree.
The DMI is not exactly informative about their products, so no idea. I assume they update products like the long-term sea-ice extent only once a year or so. Now, with the changed priorities of DMI in terms of the 30 % ice coverage, it remains to be seen whether they will discontinue even this (and other products) too.

You are talking to the wrong guy, I’ve have no interest in the MASIE debate of yours.
You have difficulty of understanding the concept of agreeing to disagree? I know that alarmists have difficulty of accepting the fact that there should be freedom of thought, but it never ceases to amaze me. You’re are the one flogging dead horses. Or do you really deny that this DMI product: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/climatology_v2/extent.uk.php
is built upon the 30 % concentration metric? Come on, enough already.

Oh phleassse, if you want to an intelligent discussion stop playing. No one has claimed that the other DMI graphs have data from 2015 or 2016.

As for waves, I have already explained my view in terms of wind, storms etc. Again the only thing we can do is to respectfully agree to disagree, oh I forgot, you don’t actually know what that means, so over and out.

For all those obsessed by the now sadly deceased DMI 30% concentration threshold Arctic sea ice extent metric, you’ll no doubt be overjoyed to learn that they’ve just published their explanation for the “artifact”:

I have only caught the tail end of this conversation. By ‘waves’ you presumable mean ocean waves that can break up the ice?

I live by the sea in southern England and waves can scour a beach here overnight depending on their size, longevity and direction. It also depends on the state of the tide. A spring tide with a persistent easterly will do considerable damage and no doubt the same principle applies in the arctic.

A year or two back I tried to get together tide tables for the arctic, both modern and historic. They don’t seem easy to come by, although I found one for 1913.

It would be worthwhile trying to correlate tides with storms etc as that would be a good pointer for the likely extent of ice break up

I put “waves” in quotes, because strictly speaking the term should be something more like “long fetch swells”.

As luck would have it I live not far from the sea in Soggy South-West England! Are you at all familar with Widemouth Bay? Here’s a graphic demonstration of what a “long fetch swell” can do if it catches you unawares:

I live near Teignmouth. Yes, long swells would have an enormous impact on ice, as would a high tide coupled with winds and big waves. I know that several beaches in Cornwall completely lost their sand in the winter storms of 2014 and I think surfing was badly affected as it exposed the rocks.

The same large waves undermined the (badly maintained) sea wall that protected the railway through Dawlish.

So wave action-however you want to define it- could have a dramatic effect on floating ice. I am not sure what scientific studies have been made of the effect

Would it surprise you to learn that the probably the world’s foremost authority on the topic of “waves in ice” is none other than Professsor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University. Lots of papers and anecdotal evidence can be accessed via:

I don’t do the surfing, horse grabber. Detroit homies are born with a healthy fear of lightning, police dogs and water that’s deeper than our ankles. And we have seen the movies about the sharks. Polar bears too?

You were right the first time, horse grabber. Been there done that. The reality and the movie. My almost father-in-law was the Chief of Staff of the Philippine Armed Forces and he rented all that stuff to Francis. I made a buck or two off it myself.

Here’s a link to the long-awaited explanation from the DMI:http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/iceextent_disagreement_is_an_artifact.uk.php
The most important part is the following:
“The increasing sea ice extent that is caused by the new coast mask is not great during summer, because sea ice has a relative short line of contact with land during summer. But the new and finer coast mask will result in increasingly more sea ice, compared to previous years during winter, as the coast line with sea ice contact is increasing. This is the reason for an increasing sea ice extent during current freeze-up period, relative to previous winters. A comparison of the 2015/2016 sea ice extent with previous years does therefore not make sense (see figure 1-left). ”

In other words, the old algorithm was not broken as such, but no one remembered to update it to the new and finer costal mask.

Anyone who has worked with satellite data, especially arctic satellite data,
and ESPECIALLY data that requires a land mask ( hint guess what I am working on today ) wasn’t the least bit confused or in question about the
30% data. And we were not “awaiting” an explanation.

The only people waiting for an explanation were

1. People who never have worked with this kind of data.
2. people who believe in conspiracies.

Utterlylowguy, you still have not found a single comment of mine to back up your lies. Compulsive as I said.
How was I wrong in asking for an explanation that the DMI did provide, and even apologized? You truly are a piece of work.
I don’t suffer liars like you lightly, so cry me a river.
No matter how many times you lie, the lie does not become true, except in your head. Now over and out in terms of you.

You have completely missed the point, which the DMI admits in their explanation: they should have explained the changes in their methodology. Why is it that fanatic alarmists like you react to any criticism like fanatic religious react to blasphemy?

It looks to me like you’re the one that’s “completely missed the point” Pethefin. Is there any chance that you (or failing that the webmaster) can cut out the ad homs in future?

You said:

No one remembered to update it to the new and finer costal mask.

That’s not what happened:

Because of the deprecated status of the old plot in the past year, DMI has not been monitoring these irregularities. The old plot should, of cause [sic], have been removed when the mask was replaced. DMI apologizes for the confusion and inconvenience this has caused.

What “no one remembered to do” was “remove the deprecated old plot when the mask was replaced”.

“You have completely missed the point, which the DMI admits in their explanation: they should have explained the changes in their methodology. Why is it that fanatic alarmists like you react to any criticism like fanatic religious react to blasphemy?”

the “failure” to explain in no way justifies the conclusions that too
many people jumped to, including you.

far too many skeptics leapt to conclusions about the guilt and sins of the believers.

In my mind that is far worse, since the skeptics religion, demands that they avoid making comments where they have no knowledge.

Of course those of us who actually work with data could see the data was wrong on its face.

Steven, I have merely been asking for a scientific explanation and on a separate note pointing out that the DMI had several other products relying on the 30 % concentration and wondering whether they will dish those too. You know as well as I do that criticism, skepticism and questioning of scientific methodologies are the oxygen of science. Science is no “safe-space” where all people sign hallelujah, quite the contrary and for a good reason.
The DMI finally gave an explanation and even an apology, which of course angers the fanatic alarmists.

Lawrence Martin February 25, 2016 at Great White Con
“The link I posted has recieved 7 clicks so far but a grand total of zero replies. I read that thread at JC’s and was reminded why I haven’t been there in almost 4 years.
As bad as the level of discourse was four years ago, this thread makes the old days seem civil and enlightened. Doesn’t J.C. realize maroons [ http://bit.ly/1Qgflr8
] like angech, pethefin and the putz called clutz arguing their nonsensical gibberish on her blog dimishes her already tarnished stature in the science community?”

Thanks Steven Mosher | February 25, 2016
So much wrong with this attempted explanation/excuse/dodge.
“caused by a new and higher resolution coast mask.”
Why were they applying a new mask update to an old offline graph in the first place unless they were still actively using it?
What was the rational or lack thereof in using it?
Why did they not adjust all the past data with the new coastal mask for all 11 years?
That is what one normally does when applying a new technique.
This is a Michael Mann Mickey Mouse excuse that they mistakenly spliced two different data algorithm graphs together.
The DMI is not that dumb, but there excuse is.
“The elevated sea ice extent in the data from the old extent algorithm was an artifact”?
No it was either the sea ice extent one would get if using a new and higher resolution coast mask or it was the real graph if the old algorithm was used and 30% ice was increasing.
“DMI removal of the old sea ice extent graph was done at an unfortunate time, [sure was] namely, during a period where it seemed that the new and old ice extent plots disagreed .”
No the problem was that the old graph 2015 data was higher than the 2014 and had been going up for 3 months.Nothing to do with the 15% graph which never agreed with the 30% graph
“Because of the deprecated status of the old plot in the past year, DMI has not been monitoring these irregularities.”
So why did DMI choose to apply a new screen to a deprecated status old plot in summer in the first place ? If they were interested enough to apply a change in the first place they must have been monitoring it quite closely.
If they were not monitoring it why introduce a new graph in the first place
“The old plot should, of cause, have been removed when the mask was replaced.”
Why?
The old plot should have been updated so it was all contiguous and treated equally. Like Mosher’s mates do all the time with their temperature data changes. Adjusting the past records when you introduce a new modifier is Standard Practice for all meteorological procedures. And it is only 11 years data..
“http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/iceextent_disagreement_is_an_artifact.uk.php
Sea Ice extent – explanation on an apparent divergence between algorithms.
DMI apologizes for the confusion and inconvenience this has caused”.
DMI should apologise for this lame excuse of a lame excuse.

Still, he will never understand that DMI don’t owe him or anthony an explanation.

It’s pretty simple: you are damned if you don’t post every last bit of data
( As I now know all too well)
you are damned if you do post all the data and dont give immediate answers to everyone who asks.

you are damned if you ever make a mistake…and yes all science is about making fewer and fewer mistakes.. so they are anti science

Steven Mosher | February 25, 2016 at 3:45 pm |
“angech pointed out this graph problem some time ago, over on Lucia’s.”
Thanks for remembering , Steve
“Still, he will never understand that DMI don’t owe him or Anthony an explanation.”
Do DMI owe an explanation to anyone?
Yes,
To me or Anthony, no.
Small fry.
Perhaps to Scientists, Arctic researchers, Climate scientists, Meteorologists and the Danish people.
Perhaps not.
“you are damned if you ever make a mistake”
Usually reserved for big mistakes, like Enron.
“and now you are damned if you apologize.”
Only if you are the Catholic church.
The Chart went “wrong” 6 months ago.
It started to show higher amounts of ice, it must be wrong.
No comment at any stage from 6 months ago that there had been a change in the way of presenting grahs. The graph was not updated before Christmas for 2-3 weeks, people noticed.
The DMI said “The person [singular] responsible for the graphs was away for 2 weeks holiday.
Convenient?
Most other ice sets were late updating as well so just no one in the office.
15 % came on line, then 30%
Anthony links to it on his sea ice charts, hundreds of people notice it and talk. It runs for 1 week? and then disappears.
The reason “it’s an outdated graph and due to take down”
It had been running happily, ice getting slowly higher for 2 years.
People fuss and another reason pops up out of the blue.
Very good logically on the maths
Make a reason for that increase.
Volkswagon cleverness
” We are using a new mask giving greater ice area.”
Problems
Why take 7 months to explain,
‘Why hide behind rubbish excuses originally
Why update 7 months ago an outdated graph unless you meant to keep on using it.
Why splice a new graph onto the end of an old graph 7 months ago.
Lance Armstrong [I like Lance by the way, absolutely crucified],
Volkswagen,
Climate science malfeasance.
A perfect trifecta.
Why bother with a conspiracy theory when you have real crooks .

So why would anyone blog about it if it is simply wrong?
Are you saying the Danes are truly inept?
“they deliberately spliced two different data algorithm graphs together.”
The DMI is not that dumb, but their excuse is.
Trouble is when it is warmer splicing modern temps onto tree ring data is OK.
When you splice modern freezing onto a different mask and it shows more ice that’s not OK.

If you compare last year and this year, there does seem to be a difference. Last year, greater extent. This year, Eastern Arctic ice appears to have been blown toward the pole. Also, this year, appears to be somewhat more 2 meter and thicker ice in the Western Arctic.

Reasonable people know who the real Wingnuts are. All readers wear Big Boy Pants. We don’t need a truth posse like you and the other leading candidates for Social Psychology Case Studies. Just curious, do you guys lay awake all night worrying about this stuff? Wonderful counseling services are available everywhere.

Can anyone tell me why the long-term climate results of this paper do not apply to the Northern Hemisphere just like they apply to the Southern Hemisphere?

The decadal standing wave-like patterns that appear in the mid-latitudes in the mean atmospheric sea level pressure anomalies and the sea-surface temperature anomalies should also take place in the Northern hemisphere. Of course, the standing wave-like patterns may be partially distorted or disrupted by the much greater prevalence presence of continental masses but they should still be present.

@PA
The so called food fight is about Watts, Clutz and other pseudo science bloggers and their conspiacy ideation regarding a discontinued graph.

What is even more interesting is that Watts. Clutz and Homewood deleted comments that were 100% factual, banned the commenters and then proceeded to delete all comments from other bloggers as well as themselves if those comments mentioned the ones already deleted. It sounds unbelievable but it is true and the comments sent down the memory hole have been archived for posterity.

Everybody has been misusing extent charts to make irrelevant points. The warmers use it to cry “we’re melting” and the anti-warmers have been pushing back.

Ice extent by definition can be up to 85% water (in this case apparently 70% water) and I’m not sure what that tells you about sea ice.

Because of questionable data manipulation in the past whenever a change is made, one side or the other or both jump on you.

What is even more interesting is that Watts. Clutz and Homewood deleted comments that were 100% factual, banned the commenters and then proceeded to delete all comments from other bloggers as well as themselves if those comments mentioned the ones already deleted.

Try making skeptical comments on a warmer site. A 100% factual comment can be misleading and I suspect some long food fights broke out. I can read the comments and see that people are excited.

Both sides were using these graphs to make invalid points. I just can’t get excited about measuring sea slush.

The nice thing about Climate Etc. is that the good Dr. other than calling personal fouls or stopping half hour victory dances, lets the players play.

You two guys are quite the pieces of work. You both operate under multiple identities. Jim Hunt has three I have been able to identify, Lawrence Martin/Martinez has two.

Both of you post off topic or disrupt threads with the sort of unsubstantiated nonsense you post above, and both demand to have these off topic comments heard and then play the “look Watts is censoring me!” game when your comments don’t meet our site comment policy and/or are abusive in nature.

Case in point- here you are making abusive off-topic comments on Dr. Curry’s site.

Plain and simple, if you comment under different identities, post off topic and/or thread disruptive comments you don’t get to participate. Mr. Hunt was warned months ago, yet he still persists in trying to get comments through under other identities such as V2G.

As for the ridiculous assertion that the Scalia {thread had to be closed to save embarasment.}

It’s still open, and was never closed and still has the “leave a comment” form at the bottom. Easily verified by following the link you provided.
http://bit.ly/1n0SsfD
Any thread that is closed will always have a note. This one was never closed nor does it have any note about it. Comments do close automatically two weeks after the post is made, and has been that way for years. You can’t even get the simplest of accusations correct.

Both of you fellows haven’t been playing by our site rules, so WUWT is under no obligation to carry your comments.

Feel free to be as upset as you wish.

My apologies to Dr. Curry for having to clutter this thread further to deal with these two.

Nope, sorry, no conspiracy. No one’s made an effort to declassify those photos. This one is just a hobby horse of mine.

I’m curious to have a meteorologist examine them, though. The argument is that the vulcanism could not have been expressed at the surface. Whaddya say we check? This one is easy.
========================

Thanks, Anthony.
Someone had to tell them.
I played some competition bridge in the city (Melbourne) when I was younger. Country kid in the big smoke. Marked 3 passes and then went to the second line missing a space on the top line. Director called to ask if there was a hidden meaning to my skipping a space.
Never knew then that that people cheated.
But those two guys thought it, obviously.
So they must have known it or tried it.
Plus tossed in the intimidation for free.
Some comments above by those two remind me of those card players.

David Springer
Actually you have proved my assertion with your conspiracy ideation regarding the depracated DMI graph. Let us put aside DMIGate, that Dodo is pushing up daisies. Do you have anything else that shows a rebound in the northern hemisphere ice since the start of this year?

I wonder if the ice huggers do what the tree huggers did in the 1970s. They would go up to the wilderness of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula for 2 weeks with 1 pair of underpants and a 5 dollar bill and change neither.

@Don Monfort
I am assuming that you didn’t actually bother to read any of the content at Jim”s blogs. Since Xmas, Jim and other bloggers at the ASIB predicted three storms with hurricaine strength winds that hit the north Atlantic as well as anomalously warm temps north of 80 degrees, several days before othe sites got a clue.
Your type seem to prefer echo chambers like WUWT and steve goggard’s troll central blog, where science takes a back seat to political ideology. Nothing better than a good gish gallop from a science troll like the discount viscount, chris monckton. Heaven forbit if you were to read things that make you think.